“Digital literature--also known as electronic literature-- is a term for work with improtant literary aspects that requres the use of digital computation (163). According to Fruin and others Tale-Spin is James Meehan’s most celebrated work of digital text that is the “first major story generation program” (164). Basically, Meehan changed the way the audience examines “assembling stories” to “generating stories” through expressive processes. Though it is by far the most notable it also highly misread. In summary, Tale-Spin and Mumble examines not only the audience model but also, the traversal function model by Aarseth’s, simulation, and ultimately the new model. In retrospect the author shares distinction between each model and seemingly returns to the original audience model. According to Fruin “the Tale-Spin effect may be used to describe the obscuring of a complex process so that it cannot be perceived by the audience. By the chapters end “resurfacing” is revisited in the context of employing the traversal function model while examining both pieces of text. Though the audience model is surely a constant debate for examination with Tale-Spin it provides only a partial view of digital literature (165).
This is a very complicated article which discusses the internal dynamics of a story-telling program called “Tale-spin” (a play on words). In conjunction with another system model called Mumble, it helps a viewer/audience construct stories. At the surface level, these stories are short, simple, primitive and sometimes contradictory, a problem which Fruin describes as flaws in the internal model. Fruin’s point is that, in contrast to the “Eliza effect” --- which means that systems may seem more complex than they really are---the “Tale-spin effect” creates over-simplified stories using extremely complex processes. Tale-spin makes assertions about a character and his/her dilemma. Mumble describes human behavior and activities using natural language; Mumble provides a “trough” of human-related data to supply the Tale-spin writing system. Problems develop and here is an example:
Joe Bear was hungry. He asked Irving Bird where some honey was. Irving refused to tell him, so Joe offered to bring him a worm if he'd tell him where some honey was. Irving agreed. But Joe didn't know where any worms were, so he asked Irving, who refused to say. So Joe offered to bring him a worm if he'd tell him where a worm was. Irving agreed. But Joe didn't know where any worms were, so he asked Irving, who refused to say. So Joe offered to bring him a worm if he'd tell him where a worm was (129–30).
This dilemma is called “looping”; it’s the kind of error found in systems which require more constraints and programming. One of Fruin’s implied points is this: that outputs may seem simple, but they are the result of complex systems development which requires intricate and highly-organized thinking. “Tale-spin” is a model for this dilemma. This is why Tale-spin is often misunderstood as a model. It seems simple, but it isn’t.
Commentary
The premise of Tail-Spin seems a bit insane (and complicated), yet the same premise has created a scholarly debate about expressive processing, Aarseth’s traversal function model, and tracing the operation of Tale-Spin’s simulation. The chapter seems to go back and forth in the discussion of how this outstanding piece of work is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. The audience model seemingly the favorite yet scrutinize and argued against other models that examine different stages of the process. However, this chapter returns back to the audience model as the in the resurfacing.
The article is powerful in the sense that it provides a wealth of detail, but it is inductively written in that it pulls the reader through high levels of detail using specialized language. Its thorough discussion is almost problematic. The title itself suggests this: “Reading Digital Literature: Surface, Data, Interaction, and Expressive Processing.” As teachers, we would probably invite this student-writer to limit the scope of such a paper. (A Glossary of Terms might also be helpful). Nevertheless, it is highly informed work, and an excellent resource for understanding and appreciating the evolution of digital literature and the degree of effort needed to construct an interactive story-telling system.
Discussion Questions
Shouldn’t we base our discussions on models of success rather than glitches (or are there so few models available that there are no successful models)?
Do you foresee the possiblility of a counter-revolution in the utility of such systems?
Summary
“Digital literature--also known as electronic literature-- is a term for work with improtant literary aspects that requres the use of digital computation (163). According to Fruin and others Tale-Spin is James Meehan’s most celebrated work of digital text that is the “first major story generation program” (164). Basically, Meehan changed the way the audience examines “assembling stories” to “generating stories” through expressive processes. Though it is by far the most notable it also highly misread. In summary, Tale-Spin and Mumble examines not only the audience model but also, the traversal function model by Aarseth’s, simulation, and ultimately the new model. In retrospect the author shares distinction between each model and seemingly returns to the original audience model. According to Fruin “the Tale-Spin effect may be used to describe the obscuring of a complex process so that it cannot be perceived by the audience. By the chapters end “resurfacing” is revisited in the context of employing the traversal function model while examining both pieces of text. Though the audience model is surely a constant debate for examination with Tale-Spin it provides only a partial view of digital literature (165).
This is a very complicated article which discusses the internal dynamics of a story-telling program called “Tale-spin” (a play on words). In conjunction with another system model called Mumble, it helps a viewer/audience construct stories. At the surface level, these stories are short, simple, primitive and sometimes contradictory, a problem which Fruin describes as flaws in the internal model. Fruin’s point is that, in contrast to the “Eliza effect” --- which means that systems may seem more complex than they really are---the “Tale-spin effect” creates over-simplified stories using extremely complex processes. Tale-spin makes assertions about a character and his/her dilemma. Mumble describes human behavior and activities using natural language; Mumble provides a “trough” of human-related data to supply the Tale-spin writing system. Problems develop and here is an example:
Joe Bear was hungry. He asked Irving Bird where some honey was. Irving refused to tell him, so Joe offered to bring him a worm if he'd tell him where some honey was. Irving agreed. But Joe didn't know where any worms were, so he asked Irving, who refused to say. So Joe offered to bring him a worm if he'd tell him where a worm was. Irving agreed. But Joe didn't know where any worms were, so he asked Irving, who refused to say. So Joe offered to bring him a worm if he'd tell him where a worm was (129–30).
This dilemma is called “looping”; it’s the kind of error found in systems which require more constraints and programming. One of Fruin’s implied points is this: that outputs may seem simple, but they are the result of complex systems development which requires intricate and highly-organized thinking. “Tale-spin” is a model for this dilemma. This is why Tale-spin is often misunderstood as a model. It seems simple, but it isn’t.
Commentary
The premise of Tail-Spin seems a bit insane (and complicated), yet the same premise has created a scholarly debate about expressive processing, Aarseth’s traversal function model, and tracing the operation of Tale-Spin’s simulation. The chapter seems to go back and forth in the discussion of how this outstanding piece of work is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. The audience model seemingly the favorite yet scrutinize and argued against other models that examine different stages of the process. However, this chapter returns back to the audience model as the in the resurfacing.
The article is powerful in the sense that it provides a wealth of detail, but it is inductively written in that it pulls the reader through high levels of detail using specialized language. Its thorough discussion is almost problematic. The title itself suggests this: “Reading Digital Literature: Surface, Data, Interaction, and Expressive Processing.” As teachers, we would probably invite this student-writer to limit the scope of such a paper. (A Glossary of Terms might also be helpful). Nevertheless, it is highly informed work, and an excellent resource for understanding and appreciating the evolution of digital literature and the degree of effort needed to construct an interactive story-telling system.
Discussion Questions
Shouldn’t we base our discussions on models of success rather than glitches (or are there so few models available that there are no successful models)?
Do you foresee the possiblility of a counter-revolution in the utility of such systems?